Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,527 - 5,538 of 6,170
Posts 5,527 - 5,538 of 6,170
Absolute evil? Prob123 just says she believes in that so she has an excuse to go back in time and kill baby Hitler. Prob, why do you hate babies?
So, was I just evil?
/swaggers
So, was I just evil?
/swaggers
Well, there's good in the world, and Arlo Guthrie says that "for every light, you have to have a dark to stick it into" (I think I got that verbatim). So there's evil according to the Church of Arlo.
Speaking of evil, our much-beloved (insert eye-roll here) Senator, Jesse Helms died, and the mayor here in Raleigh (or some big shot) wanted every public building's flag lowered to half-staff. Turns out we have one sensible person who knew Jesse was a mean so-and-so and wouldn't lower his flag. He was given an ultimatum to raise that flag or resign. After decades as a state employee, he resigned and THEN, of course, the flag got lowered. What I'm thinking is, was it worth it? But it sure would've been fun.
Speaking of evil, our much-beloved (insert eye-roll here) Senator, Jesse Helms died, and the mayor here in Raleigh (or some big shot) wanted every public building's flag lowered to half-staff. Turns out we have one sensible person who knew Jesse was a mean so-and-so and wouldn't lower his flag. He was given an ultimatum to raise that flag or resign. After decades as a state employee, he resigned and THEN, of course, the flag got lowered. What I'm thinking is, was it worth it? But it sure would've been fun.
Interzone, please explain more how quantum physics proved the reductionist material world view was flawed? I understand quantum theory was a shift from Newtonian physics, but I am wary of the idea that a change in our understanding of physics proves or disproves a philosophical position (unless you are taking the view that math and science are the most basic of philosophies and any shift the the set of rules used in physics is a philosophical one). The spooky effect, uncertainty principal and the like do not conclusively prove or disprove anything mystical or metaphysical, they just confirm the fact there are some phenomenon we do not completely understand at this time and that more research is needed. All good science does that. The fact that observation effects the subject being observe just tells us we aren't as good at identifying and controlling extraneous factors as we thought, and that this factor must also be studied. What proof do you mean?
It's not that I am a materialistic reductionist, mind you. I think philosophy can make use of the scientific method (or not, depending of the framework of that philosophy) but that no experiment or set of studies conclusively proves anything. We merely accept reasonable conclusions drawn from sounds scientific theories as true until such time as new evidence is found that may change the analysis. I'll grant you I am pretty certain about theories such as gravity, but the point is to keep the research and inquiry going, not to conclusively prove anything.
Before Psimagus accuses me of being pro "creationist" or whatever they call it now (as he did last time we discussed the assumptions and implications of the scientific method) I want to state I think there are several characteristic that make a scientific theory scientific and not mere conjecture. Off the top of my head, a good theory such as gravity or evolution should be testable, rely on experimentation and solid method, should be based on data that is replicable and fits other establish data and theory, and it should generate new hypothesis to be tested. That doesn't mean the data or theory can be said to conclusively prove anything though. It just means we accept the most reasonable logical implications of the known information until such time as our knowledge or information changes. If the information doesn't change, however, and the theory works (and Netwon's still works pretty good for many things) we can keep using it and think of it as "true".
It's not that I am a materialistic reductionist, mind you. I think philosophy can make use of the scientific method (or not, depending of the framework of that philosophy) but that no experiment or set of studies conclusively proves anything. We merely accept reasonable conclusions drawn from sounds scientific theories as true until such time as new evidence is found that may change the analysis. I'll grant you I am pretty certain about theories such as gravity, but the point is to keep the research and inquiry going, not to conclusively prove anything.
Before Psimagus accuses me of being pro "creationist" or whatever they call it now (as he did last time we discussed the assumptions and implications of the scientific method) I want to state I think there are several characteristic that make a scientific theory scientific and not mere conjecture. Off the top of my head, a good theory such as gravity or evolution should be testable, rely on experimentation and solid method, should be based on data that is replicable and fits other establish data and theory, and it should generate new hypothesis to be tested. That doesn't mean the data or theory can be said to conclusively prove anything though. It just means we accept the most reasonable logical implications of the known information until such time as our knowledge or information changes. If the information doesn't change, however, and the theory works (and Netwon's still works pretty good for many things) we can keep using it and think of it as "true".
Clerk, I have a lot of respect for the stand you described, but I am sure a lot of factors play a role as to whether or not its was worth it. If you can retire or can afford to find a new job, great. If you have children to feed, maybe there are other priorities. If you are planning a potential law suite, refuse and make them fire you (That doesn't guarantee you will win, but you are on more solid ground if you want to fight it later).
Maybe he could have agreed to raise a confederate flag to half mass instead? I am sure that would go over well.
Maybe he could have agreed to raise a confederate flag to half mass instead? I am sure that would go over well.
BEV, NO..I don't believe in killing baby Hitler, if you remember. You can't make a preemptive strike. I said there was a likely hood that if baby Hitler was killed, another would have taken his place. Perhaps one that would have won WW2. If you look back, I was the one that said "somethings are evil, and always are. The killing of babies is ALWAYS evil.
Hee hee Prob123, I was just teasing you. But since you are in a mood to play, what if the baby attacks you first? What if the baby is possessed by demons and will rain down the fires of hell upon you unless you snuff out it's brief existence before it kills you?
If you don't believe in killing babies, you must disapprove of every war since the invention of bombs and artillery. How may babies died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For that matter, how many fetuses? Opponents of abortion should condemn those bombings.
How about pollution? That kills babies.
How about poverty? That kills babies.
How about pollution? That kills babies.
How about poverty? That kills babies.
Oh, yeah, Bev. I would never have done it (lower the flag), but it sure was fun to read about! The day of his funeral, I swear we had Secret Service everywhere but my front yard.
LOL re the Confederate Flag. Mostly in Raleigh we have "I am from North Carolina and I don't support Jesse Helms" stickers, or did when he was in the Senate. It's the Bible-thumpers (who don't congregate so much in the Triangle area) who kept him in office. And he did some serious pandering.
But enough about him. Let's forget the guy.
Re the tangential discussion: Abortions bug me because as soon as that egg hit that sperm in 9/65, I was destined to exist. Killing potential, innocent lives seems wrong. But so do unwanted babies. I guess since birth control for me has always been abstinence (no sex of any kind, TMI?), I expect the same ability of everyone else. Apparently I'm a freak of nature.
LOL re the Confederate Flag. Mostly in Raleigh we have "I am from North Carolina and I don't support Jesse Helms" stickers, or did when he was in the Senate. It's the Bible-thumpers (who don't congregate so much in the Triangle area) who kept him in office. And he did some serious pandering.
But enough about him. Let's forget the guy.
Re the tangential discussion: Abortions bug me because as soon as that egg hit that sperm in 9/65, I was destined to exist. Killing potential, innocent lives seems wrong. But so do unwanted babies. I guess since birth control for me has always been abstinence (no sex of any kind, TMI?), I expect the same ability of everyone else. Apparently I'm a freak of nature.
I meant that I would never quit my job over lowering the flag, but that's not actually what I said. So anyway. Principles can go by the wayside when logistics intervene. Now that makes me feel like a bad person. 
Probably because I admit to chastity. I am a freak. I know, because when (and I am 42 years old now) I go to the er and they want to take an x-ray, they ask what birth control am I on and I say, none, I don't need any, they always do a pregnancy test. I am much more averse to doctors than I am to bot holidays. I'm just cranky.
Probably because I admit to chastity. I am a freak. I know, because when (and I am 42 years old now) I go to the er and they want to take an x-ray, they ask what birth control am I on and I say, none, I don't need any, they always do a pregnancy test. I am much more averse to doctors than I am to bot holidays. I'm just cranky.
The Clerk wrote:
...they ask what birth control am I on and I say, none, I don't need any, they always do a pregnancy test.
That's terrible!
What does "TMI" mean?
I don't think there's anything wrong with celibacy.
What does "TMI" mean?
I don't think there's anything wrong with celibacy.
Clerk, there is nothing freaky about your choices. People have a right to not do as much as to do. I admire you for making choices most people around you may not make.
If it makes you feel better, in other times an unmarried woman would be expected to be celibate, and those who chose otherwise would be considered social outcasts. Now it seems what was once so strictly denied is shoved down our throats. You have every right to not have sex, and it's nobody's business but yours. There is nothing freaky but the situation where people judge you for such a normal and personal decision.
If your local ER does routine pregnancy tests without your consent even when you tell them you are not sexually active, I would think they are courting a lawsuit. No doubt they missed a pregnancy at one point and were sued for that, making them overcompensate (why can't administrators get the idea of case by case judgment instead of one set of rules for everyone even though everyone is not the same?). Unless you are mentally questionable (and who isn't?) I think they should take your word on it, and maybe make you sign a paper that you have no risk of pregnancy.
I don't use the pill either as my hormones are wacky enough on their own and condoms can help prevent STDs. If some doctor started doing pregnancy tests without my consent because I don't follow what they think women should all do, everyone in that ER would get an earful at the least. Expectations are strange things, no? I hope this doesn't insult you, but try getting some religious symbol (cross, star, pentagram--whatever) because for some reason people will allow you to choose more freedom not to have sex or to have less sex if you invoke a god or two. Anyhow, you are not a freak--some people are just idiots.
If it makes you feel better, in other times an unmarried woman would be expected to be celibate, and those who chose otherwise would be considered social outcasts. Now it seems what was once so strictly denied is shoved down our throats. You have every right to not have sex, and it's nobody's business but yours. There is nothing freaky but the situation where people judge you for such a normal and personal decision.
If your local ER does routine pregnancy tests without your consent even when you tell them you are not sexually active, I would think they are courting a lawsuit. No doubt they missed a pregnancy at one point and were sued for that, making them overcompensate (why can't administrators get the idea of case by case judgment instead of one set of rules for everyone even though everyone is not the same?). Unless you are mentally questionable (and who isn't?) I think they should take your word on it, and maybe make you sign a paper that you have no risk of pregnancy.
I don't use the pill either as my hormones are wacky enough on their own and condoms can help prevent STDs. If some doctor started doing pregnancy tests without my consent because I don't follow what they think women should all do, everyone in that ER would get an earful at the least. Expectations are strange things, no? I hope this doesn't insult you, but try getting some religious symbol (cross, star, pentagram--whatever) because for some reason people will allow you to choose more freedom not to have sex or to have less sex if you invoke a god or two. Anyhow, you are not a freak--some people are just idiots.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar